Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The verse of Mawadda


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  20:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The verse of Mawadda

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completing nom for IP as requested at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion. I have no opinion on notability. shoy (reactions) 15:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC) The IP's rationale is as follows:

This article should be deleted because 1) It lacks notability: the verse has never figured as one of controversy of opinions or implications. 2) Wikipedia is not a site for petty pro-Shia agenda from chat forums clothed as intellectual content. The article is clearly a Shia attempt to advance their claim for Ali's preeminence--using even something as minute and insignificant an issue, among Muslims, as this single verse. 3) The sources used are at best questionable: of the 9 references, 4 of them are shiite authored, 4 lack page references, 1 is authored by Ibn Kathir (who doesn't support the article claim in his own tafsir). Nor could i find Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani's support for what he is claimed to have supported. This leads me to believe we are dealing with false supporting references to stealthily support the articles claims and invented notability. This article should be deleted for these reasons.--58.106.251.114 (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This article does feel like a sectarian WP:PROMO piece. I can't read Arabic so I am not in a position to judge the quality of the sources too closely, but I suspect that a number of them may not pass WP:RS. Ultimately this one is probably going to need a look from some editors with a higher level of competency than I posses in this field. I think I will ping the Islam project talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep(probably) Once again I feel the IP solved some of the problems they've listed as reasons for deletion (like removing Asqalani). As the article currently stands, it does not read like pro Shia propaganda at all. I'm of the belief that most sura are notable just because of the sheer volume of tasfir out there, and this one seems to have received enough coverage to be notable. I hope the IP registers an account and becomes a more frequent editor. Can you please point out which sources are from chat forums? Brustopher (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree: 1) i don't think it has enough coverage. It has a non-notable and short quote of the verse, word meaning and explanation--all unremarkable. 2) All the pro-Shia info is what is typically found in shia chat forums. User:Saff V. and User:Hadi.anani both seem to employ similar edit styles of taking fallacious arguments from these forums and slapping them with RS references to legitimize their wiki inclusion. Already, i have searched references for some of their statements and found that the content wasn't supported in these references. I am still researching their other cites for dishonesty, but as you can imagine it is a tedious process for someone with other commitments. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if they are sock-puppets or working together, but that is another issue altogether.--58.106.225.96 (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Keep IP thanks for your contributions in the article. It is better first log in and then edit articles. I am sure that you know Wikipedia rules completely but I don't know why edit by IP! I added two section in the al-Qorba (relative) section (In Sunni view and In Shia view). You can add more information about these subtitles and complete them. Please suggest more references about Sunni and Shia views until I insert in the article. Thanks Saff V. (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You presented 3 reasons to deleted the article 2 of which has really nothing to do with this AFD and the one which is related seems flawed due to misunderstanding of the policies. "the verse has never figured as one of controversy of opinions or implications. ", this is not a criteria for being notable. As the "notability" says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.". So, you would better discuss based on the sources, and as you see, there are enough reliable sources significantly covering this subject.Saff V. (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: The article is clearly notable. Some Refs such as madelung adds weight. Other reasons presented by nominator IP is not valid here and should be discussed on the articles's talk page. Mhhossein (talk) 12:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.